Sensitivity of Markov Model to Different Sampling Sizes of Condition Data
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 30, Issue 4
Abstract
After many years of service, constructed infrastructure facilities including drainage pipes, bridges, and roads show sign of deterioration. To ensure public safety and efficient management of these crucial assets, condition monitoring and mathematical predictive models have been widely used. Despite the advance in condition-monitoring techniques, closed-circuit television (CCTV) and expert-based inspection technique are still commonly used owing to their ease of use, productivity, and lower cost. Utilizing those condition data, Markov models have been widely used as a predictive tool for asset management of constructed infrastructure facilities. However, the sensitivity of the Markov model to different sampling sizes of condition data has not been investigated. This has a practical implication as more owners of infrastructure facilities start to collect condition data and are interested in understanding current and future deterioration of their infrastructure assets. This study addresses this knowledge gap with a case study of stormwater pipes. The results of the case study show that Markov models are sensitive to the sampling size of condition data. A sampling size between 600 and 700 data points is recommended for industry to collect condition data since it could provide a good starting view on deterioration patterns of stormwater pipe networks while suffering from a less than 10% error rate.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
Constructive comments from the Editor and Anonymous Reviewers are appreciated. The author is grateful to the kind support from Mr. Dominic Di Martino of Brimbank City and Mr. Martin Wong of the City of Greater Dandenong.
References
Baik, H. S., Jeong, H. S., and Abraham, D. M. (2006). “Estimating transition probabilities in Markov chain-based deterioration models for management of wastewater systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 15–24.
Bu, G., Lee, J., Guan, H., Loo, Y., and Blumenstein, M. (2015). “Prediction of long-term bridge performance: Integrated deterioration approach with case studies.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 29(3), 04014089.
City of Boroondara. (2009). “Drainage asset management plan.” Melbourne City, Australia.
Corder, G. W., and Foreman, D. I. (2014). Nonparametric statistics: A step-by-step approach, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
CPAA (Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia). (2014). “Concrete pipe facts.” 〈http://www.Cpaa.Asn.Au/General/Concrete-Pipe-Facts.Html〉 (Dec. 9, 2014).
Ge, S., and Sinha, S. (2014). “Failure analysis, condition assessment technologies, and performance prediction of prestressed-concrete cylinder pipe: State-of-the-art literature review.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 618–628.
Johnson, R. A., and Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate analysis, Prentice Hall, New York.
Jomdecha, C., Prateepasen, A., and Kaewtrakulpong, P. (2007). “Study on source location using an acoustic emission system for various corrosion types.” NDT&E Int., 40(8), 584–593.
Li, S., Jung, S., Park, K.-W., Lee, S.-M., and Kim, Y.-G. (2007). “Kinetic study on corrosion of steel in soil environments using electrical resistance sensor technique.” Mater. Chem. Phys., 103(1), 9–13.
Liu, Z., and Kleiner, Y. (2012). “State-of-the-art review of technologies for pipe structural health monitoring.” IEEE Sens. J., 12(6), 1987–1992.
Liu, Z., and Kleiner, Y. (2013). “State of the art review of inspection technologies for condition assessment of water pipes.” J. Int. Meas. Conf., 46(1), 1–15.
Micevski, T., Kuczera, G., and Coombes, P. (2002). “Markov model for storm water pipe deterioration.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 49–56.
Morcous, G. (2006). “Performance prediction of bridge deck systems using Markov chains.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 146–155.
Ranjith, S., Setunge, S., Gravina, R., and Venkatesan, S. (2013). “Deterioration prediction of timber bridge elements using the Markov chain.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 319–325.
Sagar, R. V., Prasad, B. K. R., and Sharma, R. (2012). “Evaluation of damage in reinforced concrete bridge beams using acoustic emission technique.” Nondestruct. Test. Eval., 27(2), 95–108.
Sinha, S. K. (2003). “State-of-the-art in sensor technologies for pipe inspection.” Proc., New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and Safety, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1592–1602.
Tarussov, A., Vandry, M., and De La Haza, A. (2013). “Condition assessment of concrete structures using a new analysis method: Ground-penetrating radar computer-assisted visual interpretation.” Constr. Build. Mater., 38, 1246–1254.
Tennyson, R. C., Morison, W. D., and Miesner, T. (2005). “Pipeline integrity assessment using fiber optic sensors.” Pipelines 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA, 803–817.
Thomas, O., and Sobanjo, J. (2013). “Comparison of Markov chain and semi-Markov models for crack deterioration on flexible pavements.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 186–195.
Tran, D. H., Ng, A. W. M., Mcmanus, K. J., and Burn, S. (2008). “Prediction models for serviceability deterioration of stormwater pipes.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 4(4), 287–295.
Tran, D. H., Perera, B. J. C., and Ng, A. W. M. (2010). “Markov and neural network models for prediction of structural deterioration of stormwater pipe asset.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 167–171.
WSAA (Water Service Association of Australia). (2008). “Sewer inspecting and reporting code of Australia.” Melbourne City, Australia.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 17, 2014
Accepted: Jul 22, 2015
Published online: Sep 14, 2015
Discussion open until: Feb 14, 2016
Published in print: Aug 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.